Case Studies

An NIH study of treatments for high blood pressure, called the ALLHAT trial, shows some of the strengths and limitations of comparative effectiveness research to improve patient care. More...

Recent Blog Posts

Researcher knows common flaws in CER studies, dangers of result's misuse
March 8, 2010 |

A recent article by Jerome Groopman, M.D, provides some valuable, first-hand insight as to what can go wrong when policy makers “give teeth” to comparative effectiveness research (CER) studies by translating results into “best practices.” Groopman’s understanding of the limitations of CER and the complexities of delivery high quality care to each patient, lead him to caution against blunt application of CER in ways that do not give physicians the ability to deviat

 | Read More
New USPSTF guidelines underscore need for patient-centered CER
December 16, 2009 |

A few days ago, I posted about what I saw as one of the key lessons from the controversy over the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s (USPSTF) mammography guidelines, namely, that expert panels can sometimes come to different conclusions based on the same evidence.

| Read More
PIPC urges inclusion of Senate CER provision in final reform legislation
December 10, 2009 |

Agree or disagree with the recent changes to mammography guidelines by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), one thing is clear – two sets of highly qualified experts can come to very different conclusions when looking at the same evidence. This holds big implications for provisions of health care reform like comparative effectiveness research (CER).

 | Read More

For Reporters

For journalists and other media professionals

More Information

Stay Connected

Quality and Cost

Define CER as a tool to improve patient care, not as a tool for cost containment: CER has value in helping patients and providers make good decisions, but only if it answers the questions that matter to them. CER that starts with cost containment goal will not lead to studies that answer these questions, and likely will result in misapplication of findings in order to achieve cost-cutting objective. CER that begins with the goal of quality improvement can help everyone in health care make better decisions, and will ultimately lead to better health care value.

Provide information on clinical value and patient health outcomes, not cost-effectiveness assessment: Providing doctors with information about the effectiveness of new tests and treatments can help them make better treatment decisions for their patients. But if the Institute conducts cost-effectiveness research, it will end up putting a dollar value on human life based on average study results that ignore differences between patients. The Institute’s research should not include cost-effectiveness determinations, which would lead to a focus on cetralized judgments about which healthcare options should be available.